An effective energy healer

I don't think hypnotherapists would agree that their techniques are effective only with highly hypnotizable subjects. This is borne out by a meta-analysis of pain relief through hypnosis, published in the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis in 2000:
http://accurateclinic.com/wp-content/upl...s-2000.pdf

It's based on studies comparing hypnosis to no treatment or standard treatment. The authors calculated an overall effect size of 0.67, and concluded that "the average participant treated with hypnosis demonstrated greater analgesic response than 75% of participants in standard and no-treatment control groups". For a subset of the data where hypnotic suggestibility had been measured, they did find a larger effect size (1.16) in subjects with high suggestibility, but there was still a moderate effect for those with only medium suggestibility (0.64). These groups together made up nearly 90% of the total, though the authors cautioned that the numbers for which suggestibility was measured were small. 

They also found no significant difference between the effectiveness of hypnosis and non-hypnotic psychological treatments, though of course lumping all the alternatives together may be questionable, just as lumping "no treatment" and "standard treatment" together as a control group may be questionable. I'd like to have a proper look at the paper. No doubt the experimental data in this area are rather scanty.

I don't think hypnotherapists would agree that their techniques are effective only with highly hypnotizable subjects. This is borne out by a meta-analysis of pain relief through hypnosis, published in the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis in 2000:
http://accurateclinic.com/wp-content/upl...s-2000.pdf

It's based on studies comparing hypnosis to no treatment or standard treatment. The authors calculated an overall effect size of 0.67, and concluded that "the average participant treated with hypnosis demonstrated greater analgesic response than 75% of participants in standard and no-treatment control groups". For a subset of the data where hypnotic suggestibility had been measured, they did find a larger effect size (1.16) in subjects with high suggestibility, but there was still a moderate effect for those with only medium suggestibility (0.64). These groups together made up nearly 90% of the total, though the authors cautioned that the numbers for which suggestibility was measured were small. 

They also found no significant difference between the effectiveness of hypnosis and non-hypnotic psychological treatments, though of course lumping all the alternatives together may be questionable, just as lumping "no treatment" and "standard treatment" together as a control group may be questionable. I'd like to have a proper look at the paper. No doubt the experimental data in this area are rather scanty.

Would distraction be a ‘non-hypnotic psychological treatment’?

Would distraction be a ‘non-hypnotic psychological treatment’?

I can't see it on the list of the studies they considered (Table 4), but I assume it would count, because "do whatever you want" is in there!

Has anyone following this thread actually watched some episodes of Goldsmith's TV show The Healer? I find it hard to believe that the results shown in these difficult cases can be explained by simply some form of suggestion. What actually happens is very much like Goldsmith is connecting through some sort of psi with a very deep level of the psyche of the patient, and enabling him/her to heal their own pain. A much less likely interpretation is that he is actually transmitting some form of esoteric energy into the patient's body to directly heal the pain.  

The only main problem I have with the show is the fact that we can't know how many unsuccessful cases are edited out. Of course the hospital trial indicated a very good success rate. It isn't tenable to skeptically claim that the show is just actors following a script.

I don't think there's any doubt at all that hypnotherapy can relieve pain, to the extent that people can undergo surgery without anaesthetic. 

Are there credible examples of patients who have undergone surgeries without any sort of anaesthetic, and only using hypnotherapy?

Are there credible examples of patients who have undergone surgeries without any sort of anaesthetic, and only using hypnotherapy?

I believe so. I've been trying to get a copy of a report of one particular case from the 1990s, which was published in the UK Nursing Times, but unfortunately the British Library has lost or mislaid its copy of the relevant numbers. I intend to try again, but I won't have an opportunity for a few weeks.

This Wikipedia article accepts that hypnosis alone can be an effective substitute for anaesthetics, though it says it is more common for it to be used in conjunction with local anaesthetics and sedatives. There is a reference to a report in the Medical Journal of Australia of the use of hypnosis as the sole anaesthetic for a range of dental and surgical procedures during the Japanese occupation of Singapore in 1945, when the availability of conventional anaesthetics was severely restricted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosurgery

As the discussion of hypnotherapy is a bit off-topic for this thread, I started another here:
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-hypnotherapy